on Debord
Methods of detournement
Although some of the specific phrases that debord uses in the introduction, are somewhat brash when applied today. I think that his ideas about detournement and the application thereof are not only important, but are in place today.
He begins speaking about reformist politics and the state of culture to be, at this time, already reactionary and referencing of the past and of history. This introduces the idea of negating the negation. The idea that he begins to evolve, at first sight, is already in place. He then proceeds to take this one step further. Saying things such as…
“The appearance of new necessities outmodes previous ‘inspired’ works. They become obstacles, dangerous habits. The point is not whether we like them or not. We have to go beyond them.”
I find intrigue in his use of elemental properties to build this complex idea of detournement. He lists simplicities such as, “any elements, no matter where they are taken from, can serve in making new combinations.” And proceeds to describe the outcome as, “a synthetic organization of greater efficacy.”. he describes the outcome to be me
By far, the portion of this reading that draws me the most is when he speaks about examples of detournement. .”…and it is in the advertising industry, more than in a decaying aesthetic production, that one can find the best examples.” This idea that progressive ideas and structures that should be noted are found mostly in advertising, is both unsettling and at the same time predictable. It is always true that advertising and mainstream media take ideas that are considered progressive and ‘hip’, and make them their own. Although, I believe that he is describing minor detournment and deceptive, as well as simple cases of detournement, it still holds true that he finds strength in the advertising industry’s methods and approach.
In listing the ‘four laws’ he begins to describe in detail what he means and what is effective. These approaches, in my view, parallel many artists, designers, and musicians approaches today. In many instances these ideas of, appropriation and reassignment are used. In fashion, perhaps it is a style of an era. In music, perhaps it is a backbeat in a hip-hop song, taken from a classic. In art, perhaps the appropriation of a street artist, using everything and anything he/she can get their hands on.
These ideas today are not only widely used, but I would have to assume that, by Debord, need to be negated once again. It seems that in these theories, once comfortable and commonplace, again they will need reworked.
Two quotes that I find very interesting from this work are…
In relation to urbanistic realizations, “Life can never be too disorienting.”
In regard to detournement its self at the closing of the article, “In itself, the theory of detournement scarcely interests us. …”
1 comment:
Debord's statements regarding old things becoming "dangerous habits," and making "new combinations" out of old "elements" remind me of Schecner's concept of "twice-behaved behaviors." I think both writers, in very different ways, are making the argument for recycling past ideas, styles, and works so that they say something new that becomes more appropriate or useful to, reflective of (or rebellous toward) current times. Schecner is saying we "may" invent the new from the old while Debord is saying we "must."
Post a Comment